ARTICLE
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Markfor?’’ Bad Faith and Clarity in Trade MarkSpecifications
Phillip Johnson
Published online: 30 August 2018
� The Author(s) 2018
Abstract The requirements for the specification setting out the list of goods and
services covered by a trade mark registration are rarely considered in the literature
or by the courts. The reference in C-371/18 Sky v. Skykick will enable to Court of
Justice to consider two critical issues connected with the precision of the specifi-
cation: whether clarity of the specification is a substantive requirement, and whether
it is necessary to intend to use the mark on the date of filing. It is argued here that
the Court of Justice should find that clarity is a substantive requirement for the
registration of a trade mark and confirm that a lack of intention to use a mark is a
type of bad faith which can lead to (partial) revocation of the trade mark.
Keywords Trade marks � Bad faith � Intention to use � List of goods and services �Clarity � C-371/18 Sky v. Skykick
1 Introduction
Often people talk of how trade marks work, what they do and why. But here we are
looking at what happens when trade marks go wrong and the system does not work
properly. Trade marks are different from other intellectual property rights. Whilst
patents, copyright, designs and even plant varieties require a degree of creativity –
be it originality, inventiveness or similar – trade marks require nothing more than
selection. This is not to suggest that the creation of brand identity cannot be creative
– and expensive – but in contrast to other rights it is not required. Both the mundane
and the magnificent can be protected by trade mark law. We are not looking at even
The author would like to thank Cardiff University for the funding to make this article fully open access.
P. Johnson (&)
Professor of Commercial Law, Cardiff Law School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
123
IIC (2018) 49:940–970
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0747-6
the creative bit of trade marks, but at its most functional that is the specification of
goods and services. It is the least glamorous part of a trade mark application which
has been considered little by academics or, really, even by the courts. Yet its role is
vital and central to the trade mark property.
This is because a trade mark must be registered in relation to specified goods and
services to determine its scope of protection.1 It mandates when a trade mark is
infringed – defining and placing a boundary around the exclusive rights. Indeed, the
specification can determine when a person commits a criminal offence and when she
does not.2 Yet the drafting of a trade mark specification has traditionally expected
little from the applicant leaving it to the public to work out what is infringing or not
infringing, that is what is illegal or lawful. Leaving a difficult question as to how
precise the specification must be.
2 The Need for the Specification
2.1 Broad and Vague Claiming
An applicant for a trade mark must specify the goods and services in respect of
which she is applying. As there is no requirement to have actually used the mark at
the time of application3 the applicant can apply for the mark to cover any and every
good and service. Indeed, as developing a trade mark can be an expensive process
with market research, clearance searches and so forth there is an incentive to
broadly claim (maybe, ‘‘covetously’’ claim) to protect as many different goods and
services as possible.
2.1.1 What Is Broad?
The reasons why a trade mark specification might cover more goods or services than
the applicant uses or imminently intends to use are at least threefold. First, brand
extension. The applicant might have plans, whether extensive, tentative or even
speculative, to expand the range of goods or services sold under the mark. Secondly,
the drafter accidentally, or through absence of specific instructions from the client,
claims more than is used or intended to be used. Thirdly, there is the situation where
the applicant includes goods or services which are similar to those where there is use
(or intention to use) to broaden the scope of protection. For instance, there is an
intention to use a mark for wine, but not spirits, yet the specification claims both,4 so
that the trade mark is protected in relation to goods similar to wine and similar to
spirits. What we are considering is which, if any, of those three types of broad
claiming should attract censure and sanction.
1 For an early discussion see Wilkinson (2002), p. 227.2 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Art. 61; Trade Marks
Act 1994, Sec. 92; MarkenG, Sec. 143.3 TRIPS, Art. 15(3).4 In class 31.
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 941
123
There are two ways in which an applicant can claim broadly: (a) using broad or
unclear language so that a few words cover a multitude of goods (taking account of
the inclusiveness principle,5 so, for instance, ‘‘diary products’’ is identical to ‘‘milk’’
and ‘‘milk’’ is identical to ‘‘diary products’’); (b) including goods in the specification
which the applicant had no real intention of using. The first category at least as it
applies to broad language obviously overlaps with the second. Say for example, an
applicant intends to use a new trade mark for a pear cider (perry) but the
specification says ‘‘alcoholic beverages’’. If there is no intention to expand the
product range beyond perry this would be using broad language to covers products
which the applicant did not intend to use. The pertinent issue is whether this is
acceptable and, if not, what should be required?
This question could be expressed in another way, how much time and effort does
the applicant (and her trade mark attorney) need to invest in working out the current
and future use of the mark. In patent law, the issue is clear, the patent attorney has to
work out exactly what the invention is so to be able to describe it fully. Daniel
Alexander QC, sitting as the Appointed Person,6 in HTC Corp v. One Max Ltd7 took
a very different view in relation to trade marks:
specifications are drafted by trade mark attorneys who should not have to
enquire in meticulous detail about an applicant’s precise business plans before
putting forward a specification that bears a reasonable relationship to the
business the applicant is already in or has some prospect of entering in the
future.
Within six months of HTC in Sky plc v. Skykick UK8 Arnold J asked the Court of
Justice whether, in effect, there should be such a duty by asking questions
surrounding two related issues.9 First, whether it is a substantive requirement that a
trade mark specification is sufficiently clear and precise (which will be called
clarity)10 and where it falls short does this lead to an application being rejected or
declared invalid. Secondly, whether the long-standing rule in the United Kingdom11
that an applicant must have a bona fide intention to use the mark is compatible with
EU law. Before addressing these questions, we will consider the costs associated
with vague or broad claiming and concerns with ‘‘cluttering’’ the register.
5 See T-133/05 Meric [2006] ECR II-2739.6 In the United Kingdom, an appeal from the Trade Mark registry can be heard either by the High Court
or by the Appointed Person (of which there are currently nine). In the usual course of things, it is a matter
for the appellant to decide to whom the appeal will be made and it does not depend on the complexity of
the case.7 (O/486/17) at [21].8 [2018] EWHC 155 (Ch). Permission to appeal this judgment was sought but not granted: Sky v. Skykick
(Court of Appeal, unreported, 30 July 2018).9 C-371/18 Sky & Others (pending).10 In contrast to a procedural requirement: in relation to representations see Burrell and Handler (2003) at
399–402.11 Ladas (1975), Vol. II, [626 and 627] (pp. 1146 and 1156).
942 P. Johnson
123
2.2 The Cost of Vagueness
The view taken of overly broad specifications, whether through vagueness or
claiming beyond an intention to use, determines when in a development cycle a
trade mark application should be made: is it during the development of a business
idea? Or is it after the applicant has determined what the business is or will be? The
broader and vaguer the specification can be, the earlier it can be filed in the
development cycle; whereas the more precise it has to be, the later it will have to be
filed. The cost, or potential, for brand development must also be factored in, and
with it the potential for expansion. The matter is so open because trade marks, in
contrast to other intellectual property rights, enable the applicant to make a ‘‘free’’
choice as to the goods or services covered by the mark; absent earlier rights, the
only restriction is one of cost.12 Whereas a patent will only be granted over the
inventor’s own invention, copyright only protects the author’s work and design
rights cover only the designer’s design. While there are issues with the scope of
protection for each of these other rights being unclear,13 it is always bound and tied
to a thing created by the inventor, author or designer, creating a natural maximum
boundary that can be claimed.
A broad or vague specification presents real and practical costs, and conversely,
greater precision reduces that cost. In purely economic terms allowing marks to be
registered which are not being used creates rent seeking,14 that is using the trade
mark system to increase the applicant’s wealth without creating wealth for others.
On the basis that, the trade mark system – when used – reduces search costs for
consumers15 and when a mark is not used there is no reduction in search costs.
While this provides a more formal model in terms of search costs, there are also
costs faced by users of the system itself.
A sensible trade mark applicant, and more broadly, brand developer, will
undertake a trade mark clearance search before an application is filed (or investing
in a brand). This involves looking at the trade marks currently on the register16 and
while the representation of the mark being similar is often the primary concern, a
similar mark is only a problem where the goods or services covered by the earlier
mark are sufficiently similar to the new product. The more uncertain the
specification of the earlier mark, the more steps that need to be taken with the
application either through complex disclaimers, carve outs or, ultimately, moving
on to select a new mark. Greater precision in the specification, either from its
wording or requirements of intent to use, reduce these clearance costs.
12 The fee structure currently relates to the number of Nice classes in respect of which goods or services
are claimed. Thus, the fee for an EUTM ranges from €850 for a single class to €7,200 for a mark with
goods and services in every single class; and for the United Kingdom is £170 for one class and £2,370 for
all classes.13 An argument made by Lionel Bently, IP Rights and the ‘‘Zone of Exclusivity’’ Presentation to AIPPI
UK, p. 27 February 2018.14 Landes and Posner (1987).15 Landes and Posner (1987), p. 265, passim.16 It would also probably involve a search of the market place for unregistered rights (which would be
protected under the law of passing off) using an Internet search engine.
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 943
123
Conversely, the more precise the specification, the greater the costs associated
with drafting the application both in time and, usually, in terms of professional fees.
Over precision (or no current intention to use) can also lead to missing out. This
could lead to additional applications being made for these missed goods or services
and the attendant costs; or the mark could be taken by another trader requiring the
original owner to bring potentially expensive opposition proceedings; or, if the other
goods are not similar enough and the mark has been taken, it might require the
development of totally new brand altogether. Ultimately, a stricter system places
more costs on the applicant/proprietor whereas a less strict system places greater
cost on other traders and, more distantly, on consumers. Accordingly, the level of
precision required depends on a policy decision as to the allocation of these cost.
2.3 A Cluttered Register
Once registered, there is no institutional control of the register to remove unused
marks, rather the approach is ‘‘confidently left to competitors’’17 to clear out
unused marks. So the register must contain a substantial number of unused
marks.18 Indeed, the previous practice at OHIM (now EUIPO) actively
encouraged overly broad claiming in that an applicant, upon paying the basic
fee, could claim goods or services in three classes without additional cost (buy
one – get two free). While the practice has changed so the basic fee covers only
one class, there is a still the possibility of over claiming within a single class for
no additional cost (our spirits and wine example for instance). This generous
approach leads to unused marks being left ‘‘cluttering’’ up the register which, in
principle, precludes others from using the ‘‘deadwood’’.19 There is now
empirical evidence this actually happens as it has been shown, for instance,
that specifications for EU trade marks are generally broader than for their United
States sibling registration.20
Whether this ‘‘clutter’’ hampers third parties is not universally agreed.21 There
have, however, been some firm statements from the Court of Justice on the matter.
In C-149/11 Leno Marken,22 Advocate-General Sharpston stated in relation to the
requirement of use:
It aims to ensure that the register does not contain marks that obstruct,
rather than improve, competition in the market place because they limit the
range of signs which can be registered as trade marks by others, serve no
commercial purpose and do not actually help to distinguish between goods
17 Kur and Senftleben (2017), p. 456 [6.140].18 Indeed, even if renewal is seen as the mechanism to clear the deadwood, it still leaves five years when
non-use is not addressed without a competitor. Of course, in practice most marks are renewed without
considering use.19 Graevenitz et al. (2015), p. 71 (suggesting the deadwood should be taken out of the system).20 Graevenitz et al. (2015), p. 71.21 See Kur and Senftleben (2017), pp. 214–215 [4.316 to 4.318]; Graevenitz et al. (2015), p. 71.22 EU:C:2012:422 at [32].
944 P. Johnson
123
or services in the relevant market and associate them with the proprietor of
the mark.
The Court itself adopted this reasoning23 and went on to suggest that marks
remaining on the register which are unused ‘‘risks restricting the free movement of
goods and services’’ – one of the gravest of all sins. These comments refer to the
purpose of revocation after five years of non-use, but the sentiments expressed apply
to the requirement of use throughout the life cycle of a mark. Consequently,
concerns about the cluttering of the register further lend support to a need for greater
precision.
3 Two Ways to Precision
As already mentioned, the reference in Skykick24 asks questions about two different
ways a trade mark applicant can be required to trim the fat from her application. In
this section, the discussion turns to the strength of the legal arguments behind the
each of those propositions, first whether there is a requirement of clarity and,
secondly, whether an applicant must have an intention to use the mark.
3.1 A Requirement of Clarity
In 2003 OHIM issued its infamous statement of practice25 which read ‘‘It constitutes
a proper specification of goods and services in a CTM application if the general
indications or the whole class headings provided for in the Nice Classification are
used. … The Office does not object to the use of any of the general indications and
class headings as being too vague or indefinite’’.26 Critically, it went further and
stated that ‘‘the use of a general indication found in a class heading will embrace all
the individual goods or services falling under that general indication’’.27 This
facilitated a practice whereby a person could use the class heading for Class 33
‘‘Alcoholic beverages (except beer)’’ and this would be treated as covering wine,
cider, gin and whisky and so forth. This is the case, notwithstanding, the fact that
wine and spirits, and spirits and cider are treated as dissimilar goods.28
The appropriateness of this practice was considered in a test case C-307/10
Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) v. Registrar of Trade Marks (IP
23 C-149/11 Leno Marken, EU:C:2012:816 at [32].24 C-371/18 Sky & Others (pending); Sky plc v. Skykick UK [2018] EWHC 155 (Ch).25 Communication 4/03 of the President of the Office of 16 June 2003 concerning the use of class
headings in lists of goods and services for Community trade mark applications and registrations.26 Communication 4/03, para. III.27 Communication 4/03, para. IV.28 See T-175/06 Coca Cola v. OHIM [2008] ECR II-1055 (wine dissimilar from beer, ale and porter);
T-430/07 Bodegas Montebello v. OHIM [2009] ECR II-49 (wine dissimilar from rum); also see T-584/10
Yilmaz v. OHIM, EU:T:2012:518 (Tequila dissimilar from beer).29 C-307/10 CIPA, EU:C:2012:361.
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 945
123
TRANSLATOR)29 when the Appointed Person in the United Kingdom referred a
question to the Court of Justice.30 It held that the words in a specification would
only have their natural meaning and could not be read to incorporate every good or
service in the class.31 Critical for our discussion is the answer to the other questions
regarding the existence of a requirement of clarity to which the discussion turns in a
moment. Subsequently, the EUIPO, in conjunction with the national trade mark
registries set out five terms which lack clarity: machines, machine tools, repair
installation services, treatment of materials and personal and social services
rendered by others to meet the needs of the individual.32 Two further examples
which have been flagged by the High Court are computer software33 and financial
services.34 Whether these words, or any other words, lack clarity will not be
considered here, rather we will examine what happens when a term is imprecise or
lacks clarity.35
3.2 Is Lack of Clarity a Ground of Invalidity?
The argument that a lack of clarity is a ground for invalidity was originally
considered, and rejected, by Arnold J in Stichting BDO v. BDO Unibank Inc.36
Subsequently, in Total Ltd v. YouView TV37 Sales J set out why the matter was
arguable. Most recently, as already mentioned, Arnold J concluded in Skykick that to
resolve the issue it required a reference to the Court of Justice. The starting point for
considering whether clarity is a substantive requirement is Art. 4 of the Directive
(2015/2436/EU)38:
Article 4
Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity
1. The following shall not be registered or, if registered, shall be liable to be
declared invalid:
(a) signs which cannot constitute a trade mark;
29 C-307/10 CIPA, EU:C:2012:361.30 Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys’ Trade Mark Application [2010] RPC 31.31 C-307/10 CIPA, EU:C:2012:361 at [58]; as to the temporal nature of this see below.32 Common Communication – Convergence of Practices – CP2 Convergence of Class Headings v 1.2 (28
October 2015).33 Sky plc v. Skykick UK [2018] EWHC 155 (Ch) at [162 to 173].34 FIL Ltd v. Fidelis Underwriting Ltd [2018] EWHC 1097 (Pat) at [95], Arnold J.35 This will include where the goods or services covered by the term are so variable that a trade mark
cannot perform its function: C-307/10 CIPA, EU:C:2012:361 at [54]. Variability is just a type of
imprecision.36 [2013] EWHC 418 (Ch); [2013] FSR 35 at [38]–[49].37 [2014] EWHC 1963 (Ch).38 The dates for implementing the Directive have not yet passed, but references will be made to the new
Directive as the Regulation is now in force. The wording of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 7 is
different to the Directive as it refers to ‘‘signs which do not conform to the requirements of Article 4’’
(and it does not directly refer to invalidity).
946 P. Johnson
123
The requirements of a trade mark are set out in Art. 339:
Article 3
Signs of which a trade mark may consist
A trade mark may consist of any signs, in particular words, including personal
names, or designs, letters, numerals, colours, the shape of goods or of the
packaging of goods, or sounds, provided that such signs are capable of:
(a) distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of
other undertakings; and
(b) being represented on the register in a manner which enables the
competent authorities and the public to determine the clear and precise
subject matter of the protection afforded to its proprietor
The key question, therefore, is whether the references to declarations of invalidity
which apply to ‘‘signs’’ in Art. 4 are meant to be restricted to the representation
requirement in Art. 3 only, or whether it means the representation requirement as it
applies to particular goods and services. The first time particularity of services was
considered by the Court of Justice, and so the starting point, is C-418/02 Praktiker
Bau-Heimwerkermarkte40 where the court held that the nature and content of the
(goods and) services eligible for protection are substantive conditions for obtaining
trade marks41 so as to ensure there is an identical meaning for each good or service
in every Member State.42 In simple terms, this suggests the scope of protection
conferred by a particular word used in a specification is a substantive matter. The
next, and pivotal stage, requires us to return to IP TRANSLATOR.
In IP TRANSLATOR43 the Court of Justice pointed out that the clarity and
precision of the specification of goods and services is significant in respect of
numerous aspects of trade mark law,44 in particular the absolute and relative
grounds of refusal depend on the goods and services.45 It is unarguable, for instance,
that whether a sign is descriptive, deceptive or generic is dependent on the goods to
which it is applied. For example, the mark APPLE is descriptive for apples,
deceptive for pears but distinctive for computer equipment.
The Court opined, therefore, that the more specific the description of goods and
services in the specification, the easier it is to apply the law.46 This limited
bureaucratic reasoning was dwarfed by its central reasoning: the goods and services
for which the protection of the trade mark is sought must be identified with
39 Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 4.40 [2005] ECR I-5873.41 [2005] ECR I-5873 at [31].42 [2005] ECR I-5873 at [32]; also see Directive 2008/95, recital (8).43 EU:C:2012:361.44 EU:C:2012:361 at [42].45 EU:C:2012:361 at [43 and 44].46 EU:C:2012:361 at [45].
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 947
123
sufficient clarity and precision to know the extent of the protection.47 The key part
of the judgment is as follows:
… the entry of the mark in a public register has the aim of making it accessible
to the competent authorities and to the public, particularly to economic
operators … . On the one hand, the competent authorities must know with
clarity and precision the nature of the signs of which a mark consists in order
to be able to fulfil their obligations in relation to the prior examination of
applications for registration and the publication and maintenance of an
appropriate and precise register of trade marks. … On the other hand,
economic operators must be able to acquaint themselves, with clarity and
precision, with registrations or for registration made by their actual or
potential competitors, and thus to obtain relevant information about the rights
of third parties. Accordingly, [the Trade Mark Directive] requires the goods
and services for which the protection of the trade mark is sought to be
identified by the applicant with sufficient clarity and precision to enable the
competent authorities and economic operators, on that basis alone, to
determine the extent of the protection sought.48
This final part of this extract, the rule as it were, was incorporated in the Recast
Trade Marks Directive and Regulation as part of the recent package of reforms.49 In
YouView, Sales J highlighted a number of points raised in IP TRANSLATOR which
suggest that clarity is a substantive requirement. First, the Court of Justice
highlighted that the provision of a specification is a ‘‘substantive condition’’.50
Secondly, the natural place to begin the assessment of clarity is in the definition of a
trade mark in the Directive.51 Finally, he highlighted the analogies drawn by the
Court of Justice with C-273/00 Sieckmann52 where it was held that the
representation of the sign must be identified with sufficient clarity and precision,
and the failure to provide such a representation leads to invalidity. Accordingly,
clarity, he implies, has to be a substantive requirement.
The counter-argument, originally put forward by Arnold J in Stichting, is
predicated on the grounds of invalidity being those expressly set out in the EUTM
Regulation53 (or Directive). The issue is whether the definition of a trade mark in
Art. 3 of the Directive and a construction of the words ‘‘goods and services’’ is a
reference to any goods and services or the goods and services in respect of which the
registration was sought.54 So, using the same example as above, as the sign APPLE
can function as a trade mark for computer equipment it does not matter that it cannot
do so for fruit – even if the application relates to fruit. This interpretation of the
47 EU:C:2012:361 at [49].48 EU:C:2012:361 at [46 to 49].49 Directive 2015/2436/EU, Art. 39(2) and (3); Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 33(2) and (3).50 [2014] EWHC 1963 (Ch) at [55(i)]; C-307/10 CIPA, EU:C:2012:361 at [40].51 [2014] EWHC 1963 (Ch) at [55(ii)].52 [2002] ECR I-11737; see C-307/10 CIPA, EU:C:2012:361 at [47 and 48].53 Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 128 (formerly, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, Art. 100).54 [2013] EWHC 418 (Ch) at [47]; he also drew an analogy with patent law at [48].
948 P. Johnson
123
Directive, Arnold J suggested, meant that clarity need only be considered during
examination and, later, if the specification were amended.55
In any event, once Sales J had held that the matter was not acte clair in YouView
even though it was not determinative in that case, when the question became
determinative in Skykick, Arnold J decided to make a reference to the Court of
Justice to resolve the question of whether the requirements of IP TRANSLATOR
apply during examination or afterwards as well as a ground of invalidity.56
3.3 Temporally Speaking
Whether the rule in IP TRANSLATOR applies to a particular application has now
been addressed by the Court of Justice twice. It could be argued that these cases
provide a complete answer to the first issue in SkyKick, but as will be explained both
of these cases are based on a misconception concerning legal certainty and so, it is
suggested, it would be undesirable for the Court to take the easy way out.
In the first case, C-577/14 Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA),57 it was held that part
of the ruling in IP TRANSLATOR (that relating to class headings) did not apply to
trade marks already registered, rather it only applied to pending trade mark
applications58 and, more recently, in a second case, C-501/15 Cactus,59 it was
confirmed that the rules in Prakktiker Bau and IP TRANSLATOR only concern
applications and not registered trade marks.60 There are two ways these cases could
be viewed. One way would be that the clarity requirements (including use of class
headings) only ever apply to applications, and the other is that those rules only ever
apply to applications pending at, or filed after, the date of the respective judgments.
It is necessary therefore to unpick those decisions a little.
In LAMBRETTA the Court adopted the views of Advocate-General Campos
Sanchez-Bordona.61 He opined that IP TRANSLATOR was intended to put an
obligation on the Trade Mark Office to ensure that applications comply with
requirements of clarity and precision.62 Extraordinarily, he saw the obligation as
only indirectly applying to the applicant. He went on to say that the Office did not
have a role after registration63 and, in particular, it was not possible to amend the
specification thereafter.64 This led him to conclude that IP TRANSLATOR did not
apply to existing registered trade marks.
55 [2013] EWHC 418 (Ch) at [49].56 Sky Plc & Ors v. Skykick UK Ltd [2018] EWHC 943 (Ch).57 EU:C:2017:122.58 EU:C:2017:122 at [29 and 31].59 EU:C:2017:750.60 EU:C:2017:750 at [45].61 EU:C:2017:122 at [30].62 C-577/14 Brandconcern, EU:C:2016:571 at [AG67].63 Ignoring cancellation proceedings at EUIPO, or invalidity proceedings at national offices.64 C-577/14 Brandconcern, EU:C:2016:571 at [AG44].
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 949
123
While it is possible to amend the specification of goods and services before grant,
this only tells half the story, as it is only possible to restrict the goods and services
covered by the application (narrow the specification).65 This can be done by a re-write
amendment as well as by simple deletion (e.g. ‘‘diary products’’ could re-written so as
to be restricted to ‘‘milk’’ or the words could be simply struck out). Yet where the
description of a particular good is lacking precision, it is not possible for an applicant to
remedy the situation unless the words used are indisputably narrower than the original
words. Should a word be so imprecise that its boundaries cannot be found, then a pre-
grant amendment might not be possible at all. Critically, it is also possible for a
proprietor, after registration, to surrender the mark in relation to some goods or
services66 or for a court (or trade mark office) to declare it invalid in relation to only
some of the goods or services.67 Both of which also restrict the specification.
Although rarely discussed in the trade mark context,68 the applicant cannot
broaden her specification of goods and services after the date of filing.69 So once an
application has been filed, right through to the end of the registered mark’s life, the
scope of the protection can never be any broader than it was in the original
specification. The distinction put forward by the Advocate-General would make far
more sense if the line he drew was the date of filing of the application and not the
date of grant; as there no substantive difference in terms of modifying the scope of
protection before or after grant, only the procedures are different.
The Advocate-General’s reasoning, therefore, does not set out the full picture in
at least two respects. First, he unnecessarily places the obligation as to the precision
of the list of goods and services on the Office and not the applicant. While there are
systems of registration where objections can arise only prior to grant,70 the
obligation to satisfy that requirement is still placed on the applicant. Additionally,
contrary to what the Advocate-General stated, once the trade mark application has
been granted, the Office (or a court) may have to consider the specification once
more if an application is made to invalidate the mark (or when deciding whether to
accept a surrender). Secondly, as already mentioned, the specification of goods and
services can be restricted at any time after filing, and so there is no material
difference as between pending applications and registered marks.
Nevertheless, the Court of Justice held in LAMBRETTA that the class heading
rule from IP TRANSLATOR applies only to pending applications so as preserve
legal certainty.71 However, as has been discussed and contrary to the Advocate-
General’s opinion, there is no material difference in terms of certainty before and
65 Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 49(1).66 Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 50(1); this has been suggested as the best way to remedy
vagueness: Kur and Senftleben (2017), p. 612 [11.156].67 Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 59(3); Directive 2015/236/EU, Art. 7.68 Cf patents.69 But can file a new application where the mark covering the new goods or services.70 This is the case in patents where clarity and unity are not grounds of objection before the European
Patent Office: G 1/91 Unity/SIEMENS [1992] OJ EPO 253; T 1727/12 Tape drive and printing apparatus
(unpublished*) 1 February 2016.71 EU:C:2016:571 at [30].
950 P. Johnson
123
after grant and so there is no need to apply IP TRANSLATOR to pending
applications only. Indeed, it is illogical to do so.
Unfortunately, the drafting of Art. 33 of the EUTM Regulation,72 which essentially
codified IP TRANSLATOR, also provides conflicting indicators. On the one hand, there
are temporal references suggesting that the requirement of certainty only applies before
grant: ‘‘protection of the trade mark is sought’’73; and specific provision for theOffice to
reject terms which are unclear or imprecise74 (but, as explained, this could apply to the
Office’s duties as they apply both before and after grant). Conversely, the requirement
itself is ‘‘to enable the competent authorities and economic operators… to determine the
extent of protection’’. While this could be narrowly construed to mean economic
operators should know the extent of protection for the purposes of opposition only (i.e.
while it is still an application), this would seem unlikely, particularly as in C-420/13
Netto Marken-Discount75 the Court of Justice held that the requirements of certainty for
third parties applies to both applications and registrations.
It is unlikely the Court of Justice will depart from its approach in LAMBRETTA,
but it is suggested that because the premise upon which it is built is weak, the Court
should not construe it to be a straightforward rule applying IP TRANSLATOR only
to applications. Such a reading would mean that a registered trade mark cannot be
declared invalid on the ground that the goods and services are not precise. Rather
the Court should read its earlier judgment so that it draws a ‘‘line in the sand’’ and
applies to all applications for marks which were pending at, or filed after, the date of
the judgment and continues to apply to those marks after registration (the view
adopted by Arnold J in Skykick76). This ‘‘line in the sand’’ approach fits with the
mechanism in Art. 33(8) of the EUTM Regulation to regularise old applications
which used class headings; although it does not provide a whole answer because,
contrary to the normal rules, the mechanism allows for a proprietor of an existing
mark to broaden the scope of protection.77
3.4 An Existing Answer … but Is It Suitable?
It would be possible for the Court of Justice simply to adopt the General Court’s
current approach to imprecise terms. Essentially, where the specification is too vague
to undertake a proper comparison of trade marks, the offending words are read-out of
the specification. For instance, inT-162/08Frag Commerce Internacional,78 theCourt
72 Directive 2015/236/EU, Art. 39.73 Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 33(2).74 Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 33(4).75 EU:2014:2069, [43].76 [2018] EWHC 155 (Ch) at [156]; and also Kur and Senftleben (2017), pp. 581–582 [11.41].77 From class headings to the goods covered within the class. There is a material difference between
preserving existing trade marks which used Class headings and holding that particular individual phrases
are imprecise. The former was based on a belief that class headings covered all the goods and services in
that class and the phrases on that list are (mainly) clear and precise. It was essentially a procedural device.
Conversely, where a phrase is being used to have intrinsic, rather than referential, meaning then it is
easier to argue that it should be clear and precise.78 [2009] ECR II-212.
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 951
123
accepted that where the type of retail services had not been specified,79 the Board of
Appeal was entitled to not undertake a comparison in relation to those services.80 In
other words, temporarily crossing-out81 out the relevant words. TheGeneral Court has
subsequently held repeatedly that there are circumstances where comparisons are not
possible, such as where there were apparent typographical errors (‘‘advertising
sentence’’ it is supposed for ‘‘advertising services’’82) or where additional information
would be needed towork outwhatwas covered by the goods (such as ‘‘accessories’’).83
It similarly held that an applicant should not benefit from failing to set out the goods in
a precise way.84 It appears, therefore, that where the specification lacks clarity (and so
is contrary to IP TRANSLATOR), the court or tribunal might in effect be able to cross-
out the unclear words.
This presents two issues. The first is what to do in cases of fundamental uncertainty
– that is where the words can never have a clear meaning. The second is what to do
about so-called ‘‘fuzzy’’ edges. In cases of fundamental uncertainty, that is where the
offending word is always uncertain and so would inevitably have to be ‘‘crossed-out’’
each time a comparison is made, the General Court’s approach, in effect, makes the
trademark (partially) invalid. Thewords have no legal effect whether the trademark is
declared invalid or not. The proprietor of the trade mark therefore has a worthless part
of her specification and there can be no good reason not to expunge the relevant
words.85 Conversely, there are very good reasons to remove the inoperative words.
Other traders, following a search of the register, would not necessarily be aware that
the words are uncertain and somay give them ameaning (and as the terms are unclear,
it might be a very broad meaning) leading that person to avoid using amark she would
lawfully be entitled to use. The retention of the words, therefore, allows the more
unscrupulous trade mark proprietor to assert protection in relation to those words,
notwithstanding that she knows those words would be made inoperative by crossing-
out should the matter reach court.86
In relation to ‘‘fuzzy’’ edges the question ismore difficult.87 In some cases,where it is
unclear whether another good falls within the boundaries of the description in the
specification, it may not be possible to work out whether that good is identical, but the
later user’s goods are probably going to be similar. In such a case, a view could be taken
79 C-418/02 Praktiker Bau-Heimwerkermarkte [2005] ECR I-5873.80 T-162/08 Frag Commerce Internacional [2009] ECR II-212 at [31].81 In the English courts, this would be called ‘‘blue pencilling’’.82 T-571/11 El Corte Ingles v. OHIM, EU:T:2013:145 at [54].83 T-229/12 Advance Magazine Publishers v. OHIM, EU:T:2014:95 at [38] citing T-295/01 Nordmilch v.
OHIM (OLDENBURGER) [2003] ECR II-4365 at [46].84 T-39/16 Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp, EU:T:2017:263 at [48].85 It may be in truly exceptional cases the words need to be retained for contextual purposes. This has
happened in a British patent case where an invalid claim was retained to retain the context of another
claim: see Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Nintendo of Europe GmbH [2014] EWHC 3172 (Pat).86 In the UK and Ireland, there are threats provisions (Trade Marks Act 1994, Secs. 21 to 21F; Trade
Marks Act 1995, Sec. 24) and in other EU countries such conduct might be unfair competition, but this is
hardly the point.87 However, as Herbert Hart’s well-known example of ‘‘taking a vehicle into a park’’ makes clear, most
things have some fuzzy edges: see Hart (1957); and the reply Fuller (1957).
952 P. Johnson
123
to permit the fuzzy edges to remain and allow a similarity comparison to be undertaken
(with the trade mark proprietor facing a higher hurdle, proof of likelihood of confusion,
to avoid her benefiting from the imprecision). Inother cases,where it is not clearwhether
the goods are even similar, but it is clear other goods not relevant to the current decision
would be similar, it may be that crossing-out the imprecise words provides a temporary
solution. However, legal certainty and the accuracy of the register would lend itself to
making the result final even where there are only fuzzy edges. It is therefore submitted
that if the specifications lack clarity the better solution is to find the relevant words to be
invalid and to remove them from the register unless there is an acceptable narrowing
amendment.
3.5 Certainty of Representation
The question of precision in a trade mark application has been explored in greater
detail, both academically and by the courts, in relation to the representation of themark
than it has in relation to the specification of goods and services. By looking at these
discussions it is possible to show that even if a clarity requirement were imposed for
the specification it would allow some flexibility. In other words, the scope of
protection granted by the representation shows certainty is a relative matter.
The representation of the trade mark defining the scope of the right, rather than
recording it, arose as registration becoming a bureaucratic process.88 As the Court
of Justice held in C-273/00 Sieckmann the ‘‘representation of the trade mark must
determine the precise subject matter of protection afforded’’89 and now the
Directive and Regulation provide that ‘‘the sign must be represented on the
registered in a manner which enables the competent authorities and the public to
determine the clear and precise subject matter of the protection afforded to its
proprietor’’.90 The failure to provide a proper representation is a substantive
requirement and as Burrell and Handler say91:
The explanation for the success of trade mark law in enclosing the intangible
also seems to lie in the extent to which the subject matter of trade mark law
has been capable of being reduced to a visual representation: unlike
patentable inventions, traditional trade mark subject matter, such as words,
simple phrases and device marks, can be reproduced ‘‘as such’’. Historically
this has meant that there has not been the same sense of distance between the
official documentation and the ‘‘essence’’ of the property.
While the property is represented on the register, contrary to the statement in
Sieckmann, accurately reproducing the representation does not determine the precise
subject matter of the protection afforded.92 Indeed, imprecision arises in at least two
ways. First, it is immediately apparent that a person can infringe a trade mark if the
88 In the historical context see: Sherman and Bently (1999), pp. 67–94 and 182–193.89 [2002] ECR I-11737 at [55]; now see Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 4(b).90 Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 4(b); Directive 2015/2435/EU, Art. 3(b).91 Burrell and Handler (2003) at 390.92 As Burrell and Handler go on to say.
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 953
123
infringing sign is identical or if it is similar93 (and similarly, where goods or services are
identical or similar and, in some cases without reference to the goods at all). Thus,
while the register might tell us what the property ‘‘is’’ – it does not tell us what it can do,
that is, the scope of the protection it affords.94 The identification is therefore a useful
mechanism for defining the right in terms of transactions and licensing (the ‘‘is’’
question), but it is only the beginning of the matter when it comes to what is similar. It
becomes even more complicated as some marks which have been used in the
marketplace can develop so-called ‘‘enhanced’’ distinctiveness,95 which means that
another mark is more likely to be confused with it or, put another way, distinctiveness
broadens the ‘‘penumbra’’ of the protection afforded to the mark.
Secondly, it is now the case that the representation itself is no longer sacred. In
C-252/12 Specsaver96 the trade mark owner had registered a black and white image
of the mark, but usually used a colour image in the marketplace. The Court of
Justice took the view that it would be illogical to use the mark as registered to assess
infringement. So rather than use the black and white representation,97 the Court said
the coloured mark actually used in the marketplace determined the scope of
protection.98 While this ruling may be confined to monochrome representations or
maybe just the colours used, it moves away not only from the register defining the
scope of protection but goes further so that what is registered does not actually
define the representation of the mark.
The register does not, therefore, set the boundary of the scope of protection. One
might ask, therefore, why does the representation have to be ‘‘clear and precise’’?
And by extension why is it being argued that the specification should also meet this
requirement? If the boundaries of protection are blurred and fluid and can be
influenced by use in the marketplace, cannot the requirements for specifications
remain imprecise? No. What the clarity requirements are really about is relative
certainty rather than absolute certainty. Even if the degree of certainty required in
the specification is itself flexible and uncertain, as will be explored in the final part,
greater certainty is still a desirable thing. We must now move on to the second issue
which was before the Court of Justice in the Skykick reference.
4 Bad Faith
The concept of use is central to trade mark law from registration through to
exploitation.99 Normatively, requiring use of a trade mark avoids the administrative
burdens involved in examining and registering the marks which are not going to be
93 Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 9(2)(b); Directive 2015/2435/EU, Art. 5(1)(b).94 Cf Burrell and Handler (2003) at 405–406 who suggest the ‘‘is’’ question is not answered either.95 This was decided in what remains the core Court of Justice decision: C-251/95 Sabel v. Puma [1997]
ECR I-6191.96 EU:C:2013:497.97 Even when trade marks were only printed in black and white there were internationally agreed
hatchings to represent particular colours. It is not the case that Specsaver had to register it in black and
white therefore.98 C-252/12 Specsaver, EU:C:2013:497 at [37 and 38].99 See Phillips and Simon-[Fhima] (2005), [19-15] (the view of one editor, probably Phillips).
954 P. Johnson
123
used,100 and it keeps the marks free for those who will actually make use of the
mark.101 The mechanism of revocation for non-use102 requires a potential user of
the mark to wait five years before the mark becomes free. However, there has long
been uncertainty over whether, under EU law, there was also another check on non-
use, namely requiring an applicant to have an intention to use the mark on the date
of filing.103
This uncertainty led to Arnold J asking the Court of Justice in Skykick whether an
application can be refused, or declared invalid, on the basis the application was filed
without any intent to use the mark, that is, does the absence of such an intent amount
to filing in ‘‘bad faith’’?104 In the United Kingdom, the Trade Marks Act 1994
provides that an applicant for a trade mark must state on the application form105
whether she is using the mark or has a bona fide intention to use the mark.106 Where
an applicant makes a false declaration, the application is made in bad faith.107 It
might be said, therefore, that it is the falsity of the declaration, rather than the lack
of an intent to use which has been used to refuse (or invalidate) applications on the
grounds of bad faith in the United Kingdom.108
In the absence of such a declaration, such as in relation to an application for an
EUTM, the British courts have been more circumspect; however, as the domestic
approach will be overtaken by the decision of the Court of Justice, it need not be
explored further. The position in relation to EUTMs originates with a decision of the
OHIM First Cancellation Division in TRILLIUM,109 where the absence of a
declaration of intent to use was noted, and the decision went on to hold110:
In general, and as a matter of principle, it is entirely left to the applicant to file
a list of goods and services as long as he sees fit, i.e. a list exceeding his actual
scope of business activity, and try later to expand his activities in order to be
able to show genuine use of his CTM or face revocation under Article
50(1)(a) CTMR [now EUTMR, art 58(1)(a)] and other sanctions, respectively.
It is exactly this ‘‘liberal’’ concept which underlies Articles 15 and 50 CTMR
100 Pretnar (2005), [2-10].101 Pretnar (2005), [2-10].102 Regulation (No) 2017/1001, Art. 58; Directive 2015/2436/EU, Art. 19.103 See comment of Jacob J in LABORATOIRE DE LA MER TM [2002] FSR 51 at [19].104 A term which has an autonomous meaning in EU law: C-320/12 Malaysia Dairy Industries,
EU:C:2013:435 at [29].105 Form TM3, Box 11.106 Trade Marks Act 1994, Sec. 32(3).107 DEMON ALE Trade Mark [2000] RPC 345 at 356-7, Geoffrey Hobbs QC; LABORATOIRE DE LA
MER Trade Marks [2002] FSR 51 at [19], Jacob J.108 It could be argued this is a procedural device, and so not harmonised, and so there is an outside
chance the Court of Justice would permit the United Kingdom to refuse applications based on a false
declaration, but not allow such refusal in the absence of declarations: see James Mellor et al. (eds) (2018),
p. 372 [10-307]. As a largely domestic matter, it will not be considered be further.109 Case C5347/1, 29 March 2000, Case Note [2000] ETMR 1054.110 Case C5347/1, 29 March 2000 at [8 and 9].
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 955
123
[EUTMR, arts 18 and 58] because otherwise a grace period of five years
would make little sense, if any ….There may be cases where an applicant files
a list of goods and services where all or part of it does not have the slightest
connection with his actual economic activity, and where it might even appear
unimaginable that said applicant would ever be able to expand. If in such case
the holder of the CTM immediately took action, based on ‘‘remote’’ goods or
services, against third parties, it might be worth considering Article
51(1)(b) CTMR [EUTMR, art 58(1)(b)]. But this can be left undecided
because it is not the case in the present proceedings before us.
4.1 Lindt and All That
This is the only time any EU tribunal has expressly considered whether the absence
of a bona fide intention to use a mark amounts to bad faith.111 And it firmly came
down against. However, the leading case on bad faith, C-529/07 Lindt,112 is
sufficiently ambiguous to make this answer decidedly suspect. In Lindt, the
Commission submitted to the Court that bad faith should be restricted to
registrations where the applicant had no intention of using the mark,113 and that
bad faith was a corollary to revocation on the grounds of non-use. While the
Advocate-General did not accept the Commission’s restricted position, he was
convinced that filing without a bona fide intention to use would amount to bad
faith.114 Unfortunately, the Court of Justice did not expressly address intention to
use, save maybe by implication.115
What the Court did say in Lindt was that in determining whether an application was
made in bad faith, certain factors could be taken into account: (a) the fact that the
applicant knows ormust know that a third party is using, in at least oneMember State, an
identical or similar sign for an identical or similar product capable of being confused
with the sign forwhich registration is sought; (b) the applicant’s intention to prevent that
third party from continuing to use such a sign116; and (c) the degree of legal protection
enjoyed by the third party’s sign and by the sign for which registration is sought.117
Importantly, the Court’s finding was very narrow. It held that the determination
of whether an application was made in bad faith must be made at the date of
111 The provisions with bad faith mentioned are: Regulation (No) 2017/1001, Arts. 59(1)(b), 61 and
138(2); Directive 2015/2436/EU, Arts. 4(2), 5(4)(c) and 9(1).112 [2009] ECR I-4893.113 Noted at [2009] ECR I-4893 at [AG48] and less explicitly [31 to 33].114 [2009] ECR I-4893 at [AG49].115 Moscona (2010), p. 49.116 Some commentators have taken this to be sufficient to suggest that a lack of intent to use amounts to a
factor in assessing bad faith: James Mellor et al. (eds) (2018), pp. 372–372 [10.308]; Kur and Senftleben
(2017), p. 544 [9.52].117 [2009] ECR I-4893 at [53].118 [2009] ECR I-4893 at [41]; so it may be that an intention held on Thursday when the application was
filed which has gone by Friday does not turn an application into one made with bad faith.
956 P. Johnson
123
filing,118 which would fit in with a requirement for an intention to use.119 It also
stated that bad faith requires proof of an intention to prevent a third party continuing
to use the sign. The finding in Lindt is thus confined to steps taken to prevent an
existing user120 continuing what she has done before. In its reasoning, however, the
Court said that that ‘‘the intention to prevent a third party from marketing a product
may… be an element of bad faith’’121 and subsequent conduct may be evidence that
the intention at the time of filing was to prevent a third party entering the market.122
Maybe significantly, the Court did not refer to the product entering the market under
a particular trade mark, but entering the market at all.
It might be assumed that any reference to marketing a product meant doing so
under a particular mark or sign,123 particularly as the answer to the referred question
was in terms of preventing the use of the sign. This is certainly a more coherent
view. Nevertheless, the peculiar facts of Lindt could enable the Court of Justice to
read it very narrowly. This is because Lindt was about a shape mark – bunny shapes
– being used in relation to chocolate. Accordingly, a registration of the bunny shape
as a trade mark might have precluded the sale by other traders of any bunny shaped
chocolate (a product) which the Court saw as problematic.124 Different consider-
ations might apply where the product could be sold by another trader albeit under a
different mark.125 Indeed, many traders already have to localise their trade marks
for cultural or linguistic reasons, and it may be that the Court of Justice considers
that modifying the mark to enter a market due to earlier rights is no different.
Finally, there is a somewhat perplexing suggestion in Lindt that when considering
whether a mark was applied for in bad faith, the reputation the applicant enjoys in her
mark might justify an interest in ensuring a wider legal protection of the sign. A broad
reading of this suggestionwould allow the proprietors ofmarkswith a reputation to seek
wider protection than those without. Applying this to the specification of goods would,
apparently, endorse defensivemarks of some sort (which aswewill see cannot be right).
It is probable, however, that a narrower meaning was intended by the Court enabling an
applicantwith existingunregistered rights to register those rights to strengthen any claim
against a new market entrant.126
118 [2009] ECR I-4893 at [41]; so it may be that an intention held on Thursday when the application was
filed which has gone by Friday does not turn an application into one made with bad faith.119 It made also made clear that knowledge that a third party is using sign in another Member State is not
enough to constitute bad faith: [2009] ECR I-4893 at [40].120 Possibly even a particular user – i.e. a specific intent to exclude one user, rather than a general intent
to exclude any third party.121 [2009] ECR I-4893 at [43].122 [2009] ECR I-4893 at [44].123 This was Arnold J’s assumption: Sky plc v. Skykick UK [2018] EWHC 155 (Ch) at [183].124 As to the registrability of the bunny shape itself: see C-98/11 Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli v.
OHIM EU:C:2012:307.125 Indeed, the Court noted as much: [2009] ECR I-4893 at [50]; also see Case Comment [2009] EIPR
N71 at N74.126 Ron Moscona ‘‘Bad faith as grounds for invalidation under the Community Trade Mark Regulation –
the ECJ decision in Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG v. Franz Hauswirth GmbH’’ [2010] EIPR 48
at 49.
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 957
123
While the Court of Justice considered bad faith once more in C-320/12 Malaysia
Dairy Industries,127 little of its reasoning adds much to what was said in Lindt.
Nonetheless, bad faith has been considered by the Court again in a different context.
In C-569/08 Internetportal und Marketing GmbH v. Schlicht128 it was considered in
relation to domain name registration. In contrast to trade marks, the relevant
regulation129 specifically provides for certain conduct to be bad faith,130 and the
Court of Justice was asked whether this list was exhaustive. It held it was not.131
Once this was established, the Court made reference to Lindt to state the assessment
of bad faith must involve an overall assessment of the relevant factors.132 Critically,
the Court concluded that registering a mark without the intention of using it other
than to support an application for an ‘‘.eu’’ domain name can amount to bad faith (in
relation to the domain name registration).133 This finding certainly lends support
(and little more) to the proposition that obtaining a mark with no intention to use can
be bad faith. But for the references to Lindt it might be argued that Internetportal
has no relevance to trade mark applications at all as it is an entirely different regime.
In any event, the relevant prohibition has two elements: (a) filing without an intent
to use as a mark; and (b) the sole purpose of the filing is to obtain a domain name
registration. Accordingly, the judgment cannot be said to be authority for (a) in the
absence of (b); nevertheless, it is at least an indication of the Court of Justice’s
thinking. Finally, the actual finding of bad faith rested on numerous other factors as
well, and so it may be that the absence of the intention to use was just one factor in a
wider analysis.
4.2 The View of the General Court
The issue of intent to use has been mentioned, albeit obliquely, by the General Court
on a handful of occasions. In T-507/08 Psytech International134 the General Court
was asked to consider whether the application should be rejected as being made in
bad faith because the number of goods and services covered by the application was
too large and the applicant had no intention to use the mark in relation to the entire
list of goods or services covered. The court found that there was no rule which
meant that by reason the number of goods or services covered by the application
alone could mean the application was made in bad faith.135 This must be right. The
127 EU:C:2013:435.128 [2010] ECR I-4871.129 Regulation (EU) No 874/2004 concerning the implementation and functions of the ‘‘.eu’’ Top Level
Domain [2004] OJ L162/40.130 Regulation (EU) No 874/2004, Art. 21(3), which is indirectly based on the Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy and the associated case law: see generally, Lambert et al. (2015) at [4.66 to
4.83].131 [2010] ECR I-4871 at [39].132 [2010] ECR I-4871 at [42].133 [2010] ECR I-4871 at [46].134 [2011] ECR II-165 at [82].135 [2011] ECR II-165 at [88]; this point was adopted in T-136/11 Pelicantravel.com v. OHIM
EU:T:2012:689 at [55].
958 P. Johnson
123
number of goods or services cannot, in itself, suggest bad faith. Some applicants
may use the mark in relation to hundreds of different goods and services136 and it
must be proper for them to obtain a registration covering such use.
Subsequently, in T-33/11 Peeters Landbouwmachines,137 the General Court
indicated that a reason the particular application was not made in bad faith was the
applicant’s intention to use the mark; or more precisely it had not been proved there
was no such intention (suggesting, the absence of an intention might be bad
faith).138 In T-136/11 Pelicantravel.com139 the General Court implicitly indicated
that if evidence is provided that an applicant did not intend to use a mark at the time
of filing, then this might amount to bad faith.140 In addition to these oblique general
statements of the law there are instances where it has been held that applying for a
mark with no intention to use the mark and an intention to block a third party from
entering the market amounts to bad faith (essentially following Lindt very
closely).141 The conclusion Arnold J takes from these cases in Skykick was that the
commercial logic for making the application is relevant for determining bad
faith.142
It can be seen from the decisions of the Court of Justice and General Court that
there might be a requirement for an intention to use. Importantly, however, there is
more than enough room when the Court of Justice considers the question (whether
in Skykick or otherwise) to come to the opposite conclusion. It is therefore worth
considering the legislative history and how the Court of Justice has dealt with the
related issue of defensive marks. Both of these lend support to there being a
requirement of a bona fide intention to use.
4.3 Legislative History
The prohibition on filings in bad faith in the Community Trade Mark Regulation143
originated with a proposal from the German144 delegation in October 1984.145 It
136 Such as own brand goods in a Supermarket.137 EU:T:2012:77; also see T-343/14 Cipriani v. EUIPO, EU:T:2017:458 at [46].138 T-33/11 Peeters Landbouwmachines BV v. OHIM, EU:T:2012:77 at [24 and 25].139 EU:T:2012:689 at [58 and 60].140 Sky plc v. Skykick UK [2018] EWHC 155 (Ch) at [197].141 T-82/14 Copernicus-Trademarks v. EUIPO, EU:T:2016:396 at [30, 32]; appeal held inadmissible:
C-101/17 Verus EOOD v. EUIPO, EU:C:2017: 979; T-132/16 PayPal, Inc v. EUIPO, EU:T:2017:316 at
[64].142 Sky plc v. Skykick UK [2018] EWHC 155 (Ch) at [207 and 227].143 There is an historical account of the legislative history in Tsoutsanis (2010) which mentions intention
to use at pp. 53–54, 63 and 65 [3.09, 3.27 and 3.31].144 Germany fully integrated use into its trade mark law with the Gesetz zur Anderung des Patentgesetzes
des Warenzeichengesetzes had weiterer Gesetze (commonly called the ‘‘Provisional Law’’) 4 September
1967 (I Bundesgesetzblatt No 56, p. 963). This was buttressed by the courts requiring an intent to use a
mark. See generally, Ullrich and Ullrich (1969), p. 232.145 German Communication dated 5 October 1984 (Doc No 9755/84); most of the travaux preparatoires
is available on the website of the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law, Cambridge
University: www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/projectseuropean-travaux.
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 959
123
proposed that the applicant having a bona fide intention of using the trade mark
should be a condition of registration.146 This would, accordingly, prevent trafficking
in marks and the register becoming clogged up.147 The German proposal was
accepted by the Working Party in April 1985, which took the view that a lack of
bona fide intention to use the mark should become a ground of invalidity.148 The
Working Party, however, acknowledged the difficulties with proving a lack of the
relevant intention and the majority took the view that intention should not be
checked by the Office prior to registration (Germany dissenting and the UK and
Ireland having an ‘‘open mind’’).
The requirement to have a bona fide intention to use was therefore included149 in
a draft150 of Art. 41(1)(b).151 By the 44th meeting of the Working Group in
November 1986 the German and Dutch delegations had agreed to review the
wording of the provision.152 The proposal subsequently put forward by the
Germans153 reflects the final wording154 of the Regulation and so just refers to ‘‘bad
faith’’. Importantly, the Danish delegation took the view that the provision should be
restricted to ‘‘where it becomes clear from the behaviour of the proprietor … that he
did not, when filing the application, have the bona fide intention of using the trade
mark’’155 and said there should be a statement as to what ‘‘bad faith’’ meant.156 The
Dane’s subsequent statement defining bad faith157 included a lack of any intention
to use the mark. Eventually, however, the Working Group took the view that there
was no need for this clarification158 and raised various unrecorded difficulties with
the definition. One expressed difficulty was that it was not necessary due to the
(WIPO) Explanatory Memorandum to Art. 6bis of the Paris Convention. This
statement clearly relates to concerns regarding parallel rights abroad, rather than
146 German Communication dated 5 October 1984 (Doc No 9755/84), pp. 4–5 and 7 (it stated use by
licensees should be enough to avoid a finding of bad faith).147 German Communication dated 5 October 1984 (Doc No 9755/84), p. 8.148 Summary of Conclusions of 26th and 27th Meeting of the Working Party of 25/26 April and 2/3 May
1985 on Intellectual Property (Trade Marks) (Doc 6994/85), p. 6.149 There was also a note of a proposal by the German delegation to include in draft Art. 4 (now
Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 5) that a person who is the proprietor of a trade Mark must have a
bona fide intention to use a mark: Amended Proposal for a Community Trade Mark dated 18 March 1986
(Doc 4788/86), p. 6, fn 4.150 Now Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 59.151 Amended Proposal for a Community Trade Mark dated 18 March 1986 (Doc 4788/86), p. 68, fn 26.152 Summary of Proceedings, 44th Meeting of the Working Party, 19/20/21 November 1986 (Doc
10888/86).153 See Working Party to Permanent Representative Committee dated 18 May 1987 (Doc 6383/87),
pp. 11–12 [14].154 See Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 59(1)(a).155 Working Party to Permanent Representative Committee dated 18 May 1987 (Doc 6383/87), p. 12.156 Summary Record of the Permanent Representative Committee, 7/9/10 September 1987 (Doc
8280/87), p. 23.157 It is not available in English, but a translation is Tsoutsanis (2010), p. 64 [3.30].158 Working Group 9th Meeting on Trade Mark Law 9 November (Doc 9315/87), p. 3 at [5].
960 P. Johnson
123
bona fide intention to use. The final text was therefore adopted and no additional
statements were made.159
Tsoutsanis takes the view that the replacement of an explicit requirement to have
a bona fide intention to use a mark with simply ‘‘bad faith’’ was done to exclude the
requirement of intention to use from the Regulation (and Directive).160 An
alternative, and it is suggested better view, is that the replacement of the explicit
requirement with the more general ‘‘bad faith’’ was done to broaden the scope of the
provision, in that it was believed it encompassed a bona fide intention to use and
other types of bad faith. There are at least five reasons why this view is preferable.
First, the Germans proposed the original requirement to have a bona fide
intention to use and subsequently the final ‘‘bad faith’’ text. Tsoutsanis puts this
down to a surprising change of mind161 by the Germans. While such a change of
mind is possible, there is nothing in the travaux preparatoires162 which explains
why the German’s chose new language. It is reasonable to assume that they did not
have a change of mind, but wished to broaden the range of improper conduct.
Secondly, there is nothing in any of the travaux, after the introduction of a lack of
bona fide intention to use, indicating that the Working Group no longer believed it
should be a ground of invalidity. Such an interpretation would require the reader to
assume that a broader term necessarily excludes a potentially narrower one. Thirdly,
the UK government, who would have been represented at all relevant meetings and
did not dissent from the move to bad faith, must have thought that it included lack of
an intention to use (otherwise they would be legislating contrary to the
Directive).163 Fourthly, if the Germans were proposing to exclude lack of intention
to use from the scope of bad faith it would involve a departure from a rule of the
then current German trade mark law.164 While possible, this would be very
uncommon in international negotiations.165 Finally, the Danish government must
have thought lack of intention to use was included as a type of bad faith because the
grounds it put forward for clarification included it. We know difficulties were raised
with the proposed clarificatory document, but there is nothing saying these were
connected to bona fide intention to use and the reference to Art. 6bis suggests they
were more likely concerned with parallel rights.
159 A list of statements of Commission and Council are included in Annex I of Council to Permanent
Representatives Committee 11 May 1988 (Doc 5865/88).160 Tsoutsanis (2010), p. 65 [3.30]; Kur and Senftleben (2017), p. 457 [6.144] merely say it was touched
upon in the preparatory work.161 Tsoutsanis (2010), p. 63 [3.27].162 Which the author has seen as some documents are not available.163 The Notes on Clauses for Sec. 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 include three examples of bad faith:
(a) lack of bona intention to use; (b) filing with knowledge that someone else wants to use a mark; and
(c) using a famous person’s name without consent. These Notes were not usually published at the time,
but are complied to explain policy to Ministers. An extract of the notes was made available to the author
following a Freedom of Information Request to the UK Cabinet Office.164 Warenzeichengesetz (WZG), Sec. 1(1) (trans: ‘‘Anyone willing to use the trade mark in his
commercial activity in order to distinguish his goods from the goods of others may register this trade
mark’’).165 See Halpern and Johnson (2014), pp. 48–50.
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 961
123
It appears, therefore, that the drafters of the Directive and Regulation perceived
bad faith as including (but not restricted to) a lack of bona fide intention to use the
mark. Indeed, when over 20 years later the Max Plank Institute reviewed trade mark
law as part of the lead up to the recent reforms, while it was acknowledged that
there was no clear authority, it still put forward the view that filing a trade mark
without intent to use was an act of bad faith.166 In short, the history of both the
original Directive, and in its recast form, there is strong support for the proposition
that a lack of intention to use is an example of bad faith. Further support comes from
the stance taken by the Court of Justice in relation to defensive marks.
4.4 Defensive Marks
Before the harmonisation of European trade mark law some Member States allowed
the registration of so-called reserve marks.167 These largely arose in systems where
there was no requirement to use the mark for it to remain on the register.168 For
example, in Germany, a person could register a trade mark to keep it for later
provided there was an intention to use the mark at the time of registration.169 The
number of such marks, and length of time of non-use permitted, depended on what
was justified by the industry in question.170 Eventually, the requirement of intention
to use was modified by the courts so that a long period of non-use could be used as
evidence there was no such intention to use at the date of filing.171
A defensive mark was a different matter. These marks were not being saved for
later, but were registered (without intention to use) to shadow used marks so as to
broaden the overall scope of protection.172 The origin of such marks was usually an
unduly formalistic approach to the trade mark comparison.173 While allowing
reserve marks, the German courts were more sceptical regarding defensive
marks,174 eventually holding that defensive marks could only be infringed where:
(a) the defensive mark was similar to the main mark; and (b) the alleged infringing
166 Max Planck Institute, Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System (15
February 2011) at [2.109–2.110].167 A good summary of the position is in Ladas (1975), Vol II, [626] (pp. 1149–1154).168 In the United Kingdom, there was the well-know case Nerit TM [1982] FSR 72.169 Norda and Nordina (1953) GRUR 486 at 487 (trans: ‘‘The law knows no obligation to use, but
proceeds in WZG Sec. 1 from the will to use’’ and ‘‘to the extent [the mark] is a purely defensive mark it
does not meet the requirements of WZG Sec. 1 since it is not intended for the identification of goods and
the owner of the mark does not even intend to use the sign for its intended purpose’’).170 Odoerx (1957) GRUR p. 224 (when considering whether reserve mark may be retained the following
were relevant: size and nature of the business, nature of its products, and the size of its reserve marks
collection and the relationship with the type of protect).171 Ein-Tannen-Zeichen (1970) GRUR 27 at 28 [3].172 Becher (1958) at 797 suggests that as 30% of registered marks were defensive at that time.173 Becher (1958) at 810.174 Norda and Nordina (1953) GRUR p. 486.
962 P. Johnson
123
mark must be similar to the main mark as well.175 Thus, confusing similarity is not
required between the main and infringing mark, only similarity, with the confusion
being established with the defensive mark.
While defensive marks were largely concerned with registering signs which were
slightly different from the mark being used, the same principles equally apply to the
specification being broadened to cover goods or services very similar to those in
respect of which the mark is being used. In any event, in C-234/06 Il Ponte
Finanziaria SpA v. OHIM176 the Court of Justice took the view that ‘‘defensive’’
trade marks, which were still recognised in Italy,177 had no basis under the EU trade
mark regime. It was therefore necessary to substantiate use in the normal way. This
was confirmed in relation to national marks in C-553/11 Bernard Rintisch v. Klaus
Eder.178 This means that use as a defensive mark is not genuine use and so, at the
very least, after five years the mark can be revoked. The judgments did not go
further and address whether different rules apply in relation to defensive marks
before that period has elapsed, but the court clearly considered defensive marks to
be inappropriate within the EU system.
4.5 Excluding the Brand Creator
In addition to the arguments against permitting marks to be filed without an intention to
use, there is a counter-argument for allowing, in some circumstances, a broader
specification in the absence of a current intention to use. It would be predicated on the role
of consumers in developing the brand, and potentially, the range of goods and services. In
this context it must be remembered that a trade mark is little more than part of a brand.179
The determination of what a brand ‘‘is’’ has become more difficult and
descriptions have ranged from it being a ‘‘comprehensive concept’’ accompanying a
range of ‘‘associated meanings’’180 to being described as a ‘‘gut feeling’’ about a
good, service or company.181 Indeed, this approach to branding has led to the trade
mark itself becoming the valuable commodity,182 so that ‘‘the identifier is itself the
product’’.183 Critically for our purposes, there is now an acknowledgment of what
has been called the ‘‘Brand Flip’’184 that is the role that consumers play185 in the
175 Ladas (1975), Vol. II, [626] (p. 1151).176 [2007] ECR I-7333 at [101–103] also see [AG88-89].177 Legislative Decree 929/1949, Art. 42(4) (‘‘Furthermore, revocation for nonuse shall not apply if the
proprietor of the nonused mark is at the same time the proprietor of one or more similar marks still in
force, of which at least one is being genuinely used to distinguish the same goods or services.’’)178 EU:C:2012:671 at [31–33].179 A good summary of the then current literature is Belinda Issacs, Brand Protection Matters (Sweet and
Maxwell 2000), Ch 1.180 McKenna (2009), at 93.181 Neumeier (2006), p. 146.182 Lemley (1999) at 1706.183 Lemley (1999) at 1706.184 Neumeier (2016).185 Which has particularly increased with social media: Gerhardt (2012) at 1505–1509.
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 963
123
creation of the brand around new products,186 or more pertinently expanding the
brand to cover new goods or, more commonly, services. This acknowledgment is
part of the increasing exploration of the role consumers play in developing brands –
some brands become the product.187
It might be unusual for most brands to have product ranges expanded by
consumers. Yet there are clearly instances where the customer provides services
which the supplier of the base product did not envisage.188 A common instance
might be a user group, which provides technical or customer support for a product
using the trade mark. But there are also those who adapt products, such as computer
games, which are the taken up and sold by the brand owner. Once it is
acknowledged that the consumer, or more usually groups of consumers, can be the
innovators and developers of the brand itself189 the question arises as to what effect
this has on the trade mark itself. Trade mark law has struggled with this broader
communicative function of brands190 as well as the role played by the consumers in
broadening use in trade mark law. Indeed, there is clearly a much broader question
than can be considered here, but if a brand owner is aware that consumer innovation
is possible and, maybe even, seeks to direct it,191 any new good or service provided
by a consumer192 is, probably, impliedly licensed by the trade mark owner and so
counts as her use. Accordingly, going back a stage, can an intention to use be based
on consumer development, and if it can, should arguments based on bad faith arising
from lack of an intention to use take this into account?
One formalistic answer would be Art. 5(1) and (2) of the Directive should not be
used to protect brands (only trade marks), particularly when a brand is still being
developed. While the Directive allows for protection of broader brand rights, or
merchandising rights, under Art. 5(3) this includes various checks and balances –
due cause, damage to distinctiveness or repute or unfair advantage. To allow trade
mark owners to obtain brand-like protection, including potential expansion, by
claiming goods where there is currently no intention to use undermines the balance
that was sought to be achieved. A more nuanced approach, addressing the role of
brand creators is to assess whether at the time of filing the applicant had a
reasonable belief that there will be an expansion instigated by consumers. Only
where this is the case can there be said to have been an intention to use. This might
make the enquiry more complex or it may be that it even negates the enquiry in
186 See Batey (2016), p. xi.187 Neumeier (2016), p. 27; may even extend further in aspects of the experience economy where, as
Biagioli et al., note it is identity and community which are sold: Biagioli et al. (2015), p. 85; Pottage
(2014), p. 515.188 It may even extend further in aspects of the experience economy where, as Biagioli et al, note it is
identity and community which are sold: Biagioli et al. (2015), p. 85.189 Neumeier (2016), pp. 5–6.190 Chon (2014) at 948–950.191 Biagioli et al. (2015), p. 83.192 Additional issues might arise as to whether the use is in the course of trade.
964 P. Johnson
123
some cases, but it should not affect the underlying arguments as to whether a filing
is in bad faith or not.
5 Consequences
These two issues – clarity and intention to use – have engaged with a fundamental
yet simple question, that is whether a trade mark applicant should already know, at
the time of filing the application, how the mark will be used throughout its life. An
intention to use requirement enables a brand to be developed before it is used. It
avoids wasted investment costs being incurred before the launch of a product simply
because someone else gets there first. Permitting broad and vague claiming, and
having no current intention to use, reduces the cost of obtaining trade marks for an
applicant. Nevertheless, even if a brand owner needs time to work out the exact
parameters of the use that will be made of a trade mark, the law does not merely
require use within five years or the mark is lost. It requires a third party to spend
time and money seeking to revoke a mark for non-use. Without such action the mark
remains valid and on the register and able to scare off other traders without the
resources or inclination to undertake extensive searches to determine whether use
has been made of the mark; such parties simply move on to another mark.
Problematically, the system itself accepts the difficulty a third party has in proving
use by reversing the burden of proof193 and even then the proof of use required is
quite low.194 Many trade mark proprietors will, therefore, be able to keep
competitors away from their brand perpetually even if there was never an intention
to use a significant number of the goods or services covered by the mark. Where a
burden is largely on third parties, with speculative benefit for the proprietor, it is
difficult to justify imposing it.
5.1 Fence Posts or Signposts?
As the scope of protection of a trade mark includes goods or services which are
similar to those included in the specification and, as discussed above, the
representation on the register does not accurately represent the maximum extent
of that protection, the move towards precision and narrow claiming might be
thought to be an unnecessary complication. An analogy which is sometime used is
that the register should provide signposts rather than fences.195 Another way of
expressing the matter is distinguishing between claims which set the boundaries of
the subject matter (so-called peripheral claiming), compared with those which set
193 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2018/625, Art. 19; Trade Marks Act 1994, Sec. 100;
MarkenG, Secs. 25(2), 43(1), 55(3).194 See T-409/07 Cohausz v. OHIM [2009] ECR II-173 at [35]; T-387/10 Goutier v. OHIM,
EU:T:2012:51 at [42].195 Burrell and Handler (2003) at 408–409.
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 965
123
out the central features (so-called central claiming).196 The basic distinction
between these two approaches can be explained by considering a field. To mark
ownership of a field a person can put a fence around it or they can put a signpost in
the middle saying it is her field. The usual difficulty with this analogy is that it
suggests the edges of the field are always clear and can be precisely enclosed, but as
we have seen, this is not true in relation to the scope of protection.
If the analogy with fence posts marking out the metes and bounds of the trade
mark right is inappropriate,197 so is that of signposts. Signposts point you in the
direction of travel; they can mark places far off or near and they can be frequent or
irregular. A more appropriate metaphor is calling a cab.198 Thus, a person who gives
a very detailed description of themselves tells the dispatcher they are in ‘‘London
and want to go to Heathrow Airport.199 The description ‘‘London’’ means that it
would take a very very long time (and be very expensive) for the cab to collect the
passenger. Should that person say they are in Westminster the time and complexity
of being collected diminishes greatly (although no real cabby would bother with
such vague directions). If the person says they are on Abbey Orchard Street200 then
it might take a minute or two for the taxi driver to find her fare, but it will happen.
But if the passenger says she is outside the Intellectual Property Office then they are
certain of collection quickly. The start of the journey is therefore precise. Even if the
end of the journey, which Heathrow terminal the passenger wants to go to, requires
more information. Simply put, the less precise the collection point, the longer and
more complicated it is to start the journey. So while the precision suggested here is
not a full address, as it were, it would still require the applicant to be precise
enough, following the metaphor, to identify the street.
It is on this basis, the provision of a known starting point, which can be used to
justify a requirement for a precise representation and, in turn, a precise specification.
While a representation or term in the specification may take a few steps to the left or
right of this point, it enables the court and others to have a very good idea of what
the rights are. The less precision in the starting point, the higher the cost for
competitors to determine the scope of protection. Importantly, the absence of
complete precision does not negate the advantages of more precision. This brings us
to our final question: how does one determine how precise the specification must be.
5.2 Guidance for Precision
The answer to the final question should begin with the rules already in place (even if
yet to be endorsed by the Court of Justice) for establishing whether the ‘‘use’’
196 The debate largely rages in US patent law (although see comment in Cartonneries de Thulin Sa v. Ctp
White Knight Ltd [2001] RPC 6 at [20], Robert Walker LJ); see for instance: Burk and Lemley (2009),
p. 1743; Adelman (2010); Fromer (2009), p. 719.197 Lionel Bently, IP Rights and the ‘‘Zone of Exclusivity’’ Presentation to AIPPI UK, 27 February 2018.198 In days before cabs were hailed from mobile phones with high precision as to the collection point.199 An uncertain destination as there are five terminals and some have the same and some have different
taxi drop off points.200 The current location of the London branch of the Intellectual Property Office.
966 P. Johnson
123
requirement201 has been satisfied in relation to some, but not all, goods or services.
Why this is so important is it explains how the bits of a trade mark which have not
been used are carved out from those bits which have. It spells out the level of
specificity that ideally would be required for the mark to be valid and, in any event,
how precise it needs to be after five years.
In T-126/03 Reckitt Benckiser (ALADIN),202 the Court of First Instance (General
Court) set out the basic approach to partial use of a good or service. The Court
identified the two forces pulling in the scope of use. Where a trade mark has been
used on only some goods or services then it cannot be considered to be used across
all the goods or services for which it has been registered.203 The approach the Court
took was to consider particular goods in terms of categories and sub-categories. Use
in a category is only sufficient to maintain the entire category where it cannot be
divided into sufficiently distinct sub-categories204 other than in an arbitrary
manner.205 Thus, what needs to be done is determine whether or not a category
includes independent sub-categories. The Court must then decide whether use has
been proved only in respect of that sub-category of goods and services or, on the
other hand, where no sub-category can be identified, use can be established across
the whole category.206 So for instance, ‘‘AC adapters’’ is a sub-category and so does
not sustain use across ‘‘power distribution or control machines and apparatus’’207;
‘‘therapeutic preparations for respiratory illnesses’’ is a sub-category of ‘‘pharma-
ceutical and sanitary preparations; plasters’’208 whereas ‘‘polish for metals’’209 was
an acceptable sub-category.
5.3 Conclusion … and a Proposed Answer for the Court of Justice
It is suggested, therefore, that intention to use should mirror revocation on the
grounds of non-use.210 So, where at the date of filing, the intended use of a mark
would not be sufficient to survive a revocation action five years later, a court or
tribunal should conclude that the application was made in bad faith. Nothing would
change during examination, the Trade Mark Office would still have no obligation to
determine whether there was an intention to use on filing,211 rather it would be left
201 Directive 2015/2436/EU, Art. 7; Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 58(2).202 [2005] ECR II-2861.203 [2005] ECR II-2861 at [44].204 [2005] ECR II-2861 at [45 and 46]; also see T-256/04 RESPICUR [2007] ECR II-449 at [24].205 T 230/17 Rstudio, EU:T:2018:120 at [21]; T-256/04 RESPICUR [2007] ECR II-449 at [24]; T-126/03
Reckitt Benckiser [2005] ECR II-2861 at [46].206 T-47/12 EQUITER, EU:T:2014:159 at [20].207 T-831/16 Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom v. OHIM, EU:T:2018:218 at [57].208 T-256/04 RESPICUR [2007] ECR II-449 [26 to 36]; also see T-483/04 Armour Pharmaceutical v.
OHIM [2006] ECR II-4109 at [28 and 29].209 T-126/03 Reckitt Benckiser [2005] ECR II-2861 at [49].210 As the Commission proposed see C-529/07 Lindt [2009] ECR I-4893 at [AG48] also see [31 to 33].211 This would be consistent with the travaux preparatoires, as indicated above.
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 967
123
to third parties to apply to invalidate the mark after grant.212 In practice this would
(usually) mean that only where a third party actually wants to use the unused mark
would invalidity be sought; otherwise, the unused marks (including those with no
intention to ever use) would simply remain on the register (as they do now).
As intention to use should, so far as possible,213 mirror revocation for non-use,
where there was no intention to use some of the goods and services, then the
registration should be invalidated only in relation to those goods or service (and the
rest of the registration should survive).214 Partial invalidity for bad faith should
mirror partial revocation so that an intention to use is required in relation to each
and every sufficiently distinct sub-category of goods or services. There is no logical
basis for permitting wider categorisation of goods or services for intention to use
(bad faith) during the first five years of registration than that used one day later for
revocation on the grounds of non-use.
While there will be some sorts of bad faith where the nature of the conduct means
the entire mark should be invalidated, extending this to intention to use215 would
break the link with non-use and make too many registrations vulnerable.216 So, for
example, where an applicant applies for a mark in relation to alcoholic beverages,
but intends to use it only for perry (pear cider), the specification should be partially
invalidated so as to enable the registration for perry to remain. Accordingly, the
General Court’s passing suggestion that a finding of bad faith invalidates an entire
application217 should apply only other types of bad faith.
In contrast to bad faith, the requirement of clarity would continue to be judged by
the respective Trade Mark Offices. If clarity is confirmed as a substantive
requirement, the only change of practice would be third parties could seek to
(partially) invalidate existing and future registrations. This would not create a crisis
on the register provided the imprecise term can be clarified by a narrowing
amendment; meaning that, until challenged, the terms would remain on the register
(as they do for old unused marks). Importantly, there is nothing in IP TRANSLATOR
requiring the terms used in the specification to be based on sufficiently distinct sub-
categories and so there is no reason why broad, but clear terms, cannot be used.
212 Or in opposition proceedings before Trade Mark Offices where objections on absolute grounds can be
raised.213 Two differences would be: (a) no reversal of the burden of proof; and (b) it would not be possible to
resume use to avoid invalidity: cf. Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 58(1)(a); Directive 2015/2436/
EU, Art. 19(2). In relation to (b), where the intention to use first arises after filing it will be difficult to
prove a lack of intention to use and so in most cases the mark would probably not be challenged in any
event.214 Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001, Art. 59(3); Directive 2015/2436, Art. 7.215 Here a distinction could be drawn between a UK filing and one at the EUIPO, as the false declaration
on TM3 might tarnish the whole of the UK application (cf. the US approach to fraud on the USPTO where
the whole application is refused: McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (5th edn., West
2017-18), Sec. 19:48). This has not been the UK practice, however, and it is suggested that it should not
change.216 There may be cases where the selection of goods and services was so reckless that the bad faith
spreads to the whole application, but as intention to use should normally mirror revocation for non-use,
this might be seen as a different type of bad faith altogether.217 T-321/10 Gruppo Salini, EU:T:2013:372 at [48].
968 P. Johnson
123
However, absent use (and intention to use) across the whole of a broad category
should any person apply to revoke or invalidate the mark, the specification would
eventually have to be drafted in narrow terms in any event.
5.4 Final Thoughts
The requirement of precision (through an obligation of clarity and intent to use)
would not be too onerous and could even be seen as lenient compared to other
offices. We have seen how the path towards a more precise specification has been
set by the history of the legislation and the case law of the European courts. To end,
one can simply endorse the typically robust language of Sir Robin Jacob when in
2000 he said the problem of overly broad specifications needs resolution ‘‘sooner,
rather than later … [so as] to stop this nonsense’’.218 It has taken some time, but the
Court of Justice should take the opportunity it has been given in Skykick to make the
register more accurate, less cluttered and more certain.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, dis-
tribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
made.
References
Adelman MJ (2010) Patent claiming in the United States: central, peripheral or mongrel? IP Theory
1(2):2
Batey M (2016) Brand meaning: meaning. Myth and mystique in today’s brands, 2nd edn. Routledge,
New York
Becher H (1958) The law and practice of defensive trademarks in Germany. TMR 48:797
Biagioli M, Chandler A, Sunder M (2015) Brands R us. In: Sun H, Bebe B, Sunder M (eds) The luxury
economy and intellectual property. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Burk D, Lemley M (2009) Fence posts or sign posts–rethinking patent claim construction. U Pa L Rev
157:1743
Burrell R, Handler M (2003) Making sense of trade mark law. IPQ 388:399–402
Chon M (2014) Slow logo: brand citizenship in global value networks. UC Davis LR 47:935
Fromer JC (2009) Claiming intellectual property. U Chi L Rev 76:719
Fuller L (1957) Positivism and fidelity to law—a reply to Professor Hart. Harv Law Rev 7:630
Gerhardt D (2012) Social media amplify consumer investment in trademarks. NC Law Rev 90:1491
Halpern S, Johnson P (2014) Harmonisng copyright law and dealing with dissonance. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham
Hart H (1957) Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harv Law Rev 71:593–607
James Mellor QC et al (eds) (2018) Kerly’s law of trade marks and trade names, 16th edn. Sweet and
Maxwell, London
Kur A, Senftleben M (2017) European trade mark law: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ladas S (1975) Patents, trademarks, and related rights. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Lambert P et al (2015) Gringras: the laws of the internet, 4th edn. Bloomsbury, London
Landes W, Posner R (1987) Trademark law: an economic perspective. J Law Econ 265:281
Lemley M (1999) The modern Lanham Act and the death or common sense. Yale LJ 108:1687
McKenna M (2009) Testing modern trademark law’s theory of harm. Iowa LR 95:63
218 In his preface to Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (David Kitchin QC et al. eds.) (13th
edn., Sweet and Maxwell 2001), p. ix.
‘‘So Precisely What Will You Use Your Trade Mark for?’’ 969
123
Moscona R (2010) Bad faith as grounds for invalidation under the Community Trade Mark Regulation –
the ECJ decision. In: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG v. Franz Hauswirth GmbH, EIPR 48
at 49
Neumeier M (2006) The brand gap. New Riders, Berkeley
Neumeier M (2016) The brand flip. New Riders, Berkeley
Phillips J, Simon I (2005) Trade mark use. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Pottage A (2014) No (more) logo: plain packaging and communicative agency. UC Davis LR 47:515
Pretnar B (2005) Use and non-use in trade mark law. In: Phillips J, Simon I (eds) Trade mark use. Oxford
University Press, Oxford
Sherman B, Bently L (1999) The making of modern intellectual property law: the British experience
1760–1911. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tsoutsanis A (2010) Trade mark registrations in bad faith. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ullrich A, T Ullrich (1969) The newly introduced use requirement in Section 5 of the German Trademark
Law. TMR 59
Von Graevenitz G, Ashmead R, Greenhaigh C (2015) Cluttering and non-use of trade marks in Europe.
UK IPO August 2015, p 71
Wilkinson D (2002) Broad trade mark specifications. EIPR, p 227
970 P. Johnson
123